“Let them die!” — Why the vitriol in Tea Party ranks towards aiding the weak/ill?

Sociopaths hate being asked to be generous or to consider the wellbeing of others. Emotionally/psychologically it “hurts” them. Literally they have never crossed into the “OK, I’m now able/willing to share my toys” stage of childhood. They still resent being asked and like young children get angry at being pressed beyond their development stage.

Elsewhere I have suggested it might be possible to pin down a sociopath’s approximate age level (somewhere in the latency period) but their development is a very odd amalgam with some incredibly young traits. The above is one, another is their inability to differentiate between the self and the self’s emotional desires (to them these are not two things). Being emotionally thwarted is taken to be an attack on the self.

True adult Tea Partiers should take over the movement. I am sure there are many sincere members who seek to restore constitutional government and a true democracy that reflects the wishes of the citizens.

Post navigation

5 thoughts on ““Let them die!” — Why the vitriol in Tea Party ranks towards aiding the weak/ill?”

“Sociopaths hate being asked to be generous or to consider the wellbeing of others.”
The key word there is “asked” – the government doesn’t ask people to, as you put it, share their toys; it commands them with threat of force. And what kind of person does government attract and reward? Those who desire power, are charming, and not limited by ethics. In other words, SAPs. The men in the video were outrageously rude and unnecessarily aggressive, the one throwing money in particular. Look at the way he backs up after the first toss, ready to blend into the crowd if his actions are condemned, then steps back forward when it’s clear that he is safe; he knows he’s on the fringe and is aggressing only because he perceives a weak target. Nonetheless, the statement that charity should be a personal decision is one with principled adherents. Before declaring so many people to be sociopaths on the basis of perceived heartlessness, consider that they may be considering the interests and feelings of those you might’ve overlooked, such as the middle class people being robbed of substantial portions of their own income to pay for others wellbeing rather than their own. Some hold their own children to be more important to them than those of the man with the sign; it would be unfair to their children if they did not. Some are concerned that leaving power in the hands of the government leads to abuse and corruption that’s hard to address, while using a private charity leaves one with the option to immediately defund them upon personal determination of corruption. I think you’re mistaking recovering victims of grand scale sociopathy for sociopaths. They’re upset, but that’s to be understood – they’ve realized they’ve been used and are starting to do something about it. Anger is a part of that process, isn’t it?

I can’t quite read the sign that man is holding, but I think it starts “Get parkinson’s and” and that the rest of the message is something to the effect that only then would Tea Partiers have the proper perspective to protest. If so, then their anger, though not their lack of decorum, is justified. Here they are trying to break free of a yoke of government and someone’s showed up to inform them, implicitly, that it isn’t their place, that they’re not wise enough to manage their own affairs, that they’re not moral enough to make their own decisions. This is the general message of big government, and I consider it to be a form of gaslighting, one that works by using “social proof.” I don’t think that the man holding the sign was aware of that or had such malicious intent; rather, the distress brought about by his son’s illness made him an easy target for the gaslighting. Why would he doubt the charming politicians offering a way to provide for his son?

The “let them die” question, while extreme, should have its source noted. It did not come from the cheering audience. It came from Blitzer, and though he said “society” he could only have accurately and relevantly meant “coercive government” because no discussion of prohibiting charity was ongoing. What’s the appropriate response to a question perjoratively phrased, even at the cost of accuracy, asking whether you want to be free of the another’s control so you can do things according to your own conscience? A shouted “yes”, and that’s what was received. Congressman Paul seemed to respond to the literal question; the audience responded to the attempt and/or the contextual meaning. Rudeness isn’t just acceptable when dealing with sociopaths, it is at times recommended (https://pathwhisperer.wordpress.com/tag/fake-crying/).

Your arguments definitely have some/considerable merit. My view of libertarianism, and Ron Paul, is that they have a lot to teach us about a better society, one that is not a nanny state and that encourages self reliance (our safety net is badly designed, we have a welfare system that destroys families — that’s hideous). However I can’t support the full libertarian trip.

There was nothing literal about Hoffa’s “Take them out” comment. He was simply hitting you with the fist of public condemnation, as was Maxine Waters also. If you are against the middle class lifestyle, then you are against the American way of life, then you are a traitor to America.

Meta

Contact/Copyright/Disclaimer

All material copyrighted 2017.
Nonprofit internet use allowed with proper credit.
For nonprofit published or for profit use please contact me.
"Path Whisperer" and "pathwhisperer" trademarked.

This blog advances opinions, not statements of scientific certainties. All outside commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments. If included in the blog they are presented as the commenters' own opinions only.